MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of deduction so in this case no penalty should be imposed because there was no addition on record and the voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgments penalty is unjustified in this case wherein assessee has surrender

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9%. We are of the opinion, that where the addition is sustained\non the estimated basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied.\nThe disallowance of purchases on adhoc/estimated basis does not\ntantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars ofincome under the\nprovisions ofSection 271(1) (c) ofthe Act. The A.O. has not doubted the\nsales

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

u/s 271AAA can be imposed on the undisclosed income and the term undisclosed income for the purpose of section 271AAA is defined in explanation to section 271AAA. As per the provision and the explanation no penalty can imposed on the addition on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. 3 Ummaid Mal Singhvi 6] Without prejudice to above

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

section 147/144 of the act and that while deciding the case ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and arbitrary confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 147/144 of the act and that while deciding the case ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and arbitrary confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section 147/144 of the act and that while deciding the case ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and arbitrary confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed being premature at this stage. 06. The last ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication thus the same being treated as duly disposed off hereby. 07. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed being premature at this stage. 06. The last ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication thus the same being treated as duly disposed off hereby. 07. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal does not have any merit, as no prejudice is caused to the assessee on mere initiation of penalty proceedings Penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and levying of penalty is not automatic after its initiation. Therefore, this ground of appeal is pre- mature and the same is hereby dismissed” 6. Against